Meet the Secret Supreme Court of the United States

This program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by Congress, but by the FISA Court — a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them, and that it’s being carried out consistent with the Constitution and rule of law.

Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case — the government — and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals, but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court’s history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA court.

One of the most incredible things that has occurred in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks has been President Barack Obama’s laughable attempt to justify the spying by claiming the process has judicial oversight, as he did in the quote above. What he fails to mention of course is the fact that the FISA court that signs off on all these activities is a secret court, the opinions of which are never made public. Does he think the American public is so brain-dead it is incapable of recognizing the difference between a regular court of law and a secret one? Apparently he does. For those of you that have yet to get up to speed on America’s “parallel Supreme Court,” which also disturbingly happens to constructs its own laws, please read the article below from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say.

The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case — the government — and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals, but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court’s history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA court.

Created by Congress in 1978 as a check against wiretapping abuses by the government, the court meets in a secure, nondescript room in the federal courthouse in Washington. All of the current 11 judges, who serve seven-year terms, were appointed to the special court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and 10 of them were nominated to the bench by Republican presidents. Most hail from districts outside the capital and come in rotating shifts to hear surveillance applications; a single judge signs most surveillance orders, which totaled nearly 1,800 last year. None of the requests from the intelligence agencies was denied, according to the court.

The court has indicated that while individual pieces of data may not appear “relevant” to a terrorism investigation, the total picture that the bits of data create may in fact be relevant, according to the officials with knowledge of the decisions.

Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said he was troubled by the idea that the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government, forgoing the adversarial system that is a staple of the American justice system. “That whole notion is missing in this process,” he said.

Sorry, but secret courts pretty much destroy the rule of law entirely. We should all be outraged, offended and motivated to change this for good.

6 Comments

It’s secret because they want to do what they want without any problems and be able to say “they are following the law”. But it’s all pure BS. This is worse than a communist system. Voting in the same idiots and criminals over and over will get you this kind of stuff. The people of USSA deserve this. When they start voting for ANY OTHER candidate and rebel against this nonsense then things will change. Until then the USSA is a car out of control heading one way towards the 2000 ft. cliff and getting closer and closer to it every day. Enjoy the good times because what’s coming will make what happened in Bosnia look like a walk in the park.

You SERIOUSLY, ACTUALLY believe we are really voting? Wow, I don’t think you’re paying attention. This is what we call serious denial or normalcy bias, or other forms of neurosis that the american sheeple have perfected to a psychosis.

Obama is right when he thinks the US people are that stupid.
It is easy to explain. Firstly, US sheeple like to be part of something superior, so they go for fantasies like Superman and equal the country to Superman – just the “best country in the world”. That brainwash works well.
Secondly, US people live in constant fear. Besides the fear of being mugged and shot there are all the fears about the economic and health-related well-beings. SS is not enough, investments are being manipulated and taxes are horrendous, health insurance has life time limits, is costly and does not cover many things. Then there is this fear about security that people sacrifice everything for. They do not see that common gun violence kills more people annually than terrorists have killed in the last 100 years. Connecting dots is a real challenge.